The Influence of Video Reflection on Preservice Music Teachers’ Concerns in Peer- and Field-Teaching Settings

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate preservice music teacher concerns as stated in written reflections before and after video feedback. Nineteen preservice music teachers enrolled in instrumental methods courses wrote free-response reflections of peer- and field-teaching episodes. Statements were coded utilizing the Fuller and Bown teacher concerns framework. A total of 2,404 statements were coded into self, task, and student impact concern categories. In addition to coding the data using an a priori approach, I used an inductive process to examine the quality of participants’ reflective statements before and after video reflection. Video reflections included approximately 65% more statements than initial reflections. Qualitative content analysis revealed that participants’ reflections grew more detailed and specific as a result of video feedback. Many video reflections also included a second level of reflection. Participants focused in greater detail on their ability to communicate with students, detect errors in performance, and provide specific feedback related to the lesson objectives and responses from students. Participants made more critical comments about their physical appearance after video feedback, focusing on what they perceived as awkward physical traits or habits. Overall percentages of concerns in each category remained stable throughout.

Keywords

concerns Fuller and Bown preservice teachers video reflection practicum

A key component of learning from experience is the practice of reflection, and many teacher education programs include reflective practice as an integral part of teacher preparation. Dewey (1910/1991) defined reflection as the “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends” (p. 6). Schön (1983) echoed Dewey’s emphasis on the need for the development of reflective practice through systematic analysis. According to Schön, practitioners, and those learning to be practitioners, may miss opportunities to think about their practice as it becomes more routine. Through reflection, practitioners can inspect tacit understandings critically: “Reflection-in-action, in these several modes, is central to the art through which practitioners sometimes cope with the troublesome ‘divergent’ situations of practice” (Schön, 1983, p. 62). Clarà (2015), seeking to clarify the concept of reflection as presented by Dewey and Schön, wrote that reflection is “spontaneous, common, real thinking” that “transforms an incoherent situation into a coherent one” (pp. 2–3). Inference and observation may lead to implications for future action.

Video reflection is a versatile medium for deconstructing teaching practice (Newhouse, Lane, & Brown, 2007) as videos can capture the “complexities” and “authenticity” of classrooms (Kurz, Llama, & Savenye, 2005, p. 68). Several researchers have examined the use of video to support reflective practice in the development of teachers (e.g., Calandra, Gurvitch, & Lund, 2008; Capizzi, Wehby, & Sandmel, 2010). Video can serve as a stimulus for critical reflection because it allows preservice teachers to distance themselves from the teaching moment, to respond to strong and weak aspects of their teaching, and to review the teaching segment multiple times for reexamination and further reflection (Orlova, 2009). Video also may enhance written and verbal reflective practices (Harford & MacRuairc, 2008). Video allows teachers to separate themselves from the moment (Sherin & van Es, 2005) and “to be an actor and a critic” (Nieves-Squires, 1978, p. 258). Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, and Terpstra (2008) argue that video reflection “jars complacency” (p. 358) by presenting dissonance between teachers’ memories of the teaching episode and what actually occurred. Video reflection has been shown to enhance preservice teachers’ ability to “notice,” as novice teachers learn to connect classroom interactions with broader principles of teaching and learning (e. g., van Es & Sherin, 2008) and see things that they would otherwise miss (Zhang, Lundeberg, Koehler, & Eberhardt, 2011). Video reflection also may assist preservice teachers in gaining a critical perspective on their teaching practice (King, 2008) and to focus more on student needs (Eröz-Tuğa, 2013). Tripp and Rich (2012b) reported that teachers who underwent a video reflection process had an increased desire to change and improve their practice along with an enhanced understanding about how to change.

Rosaen et al. (2008) examined the video-based versus memory-based written reflections completed by teacher interns. They found that participants wrote more specific comments about their teaching, focused more on instruction and less on classroom management, and focused less on themselves and more on students in video reflection. Additionally, students completing written reflections of their teaching as part of a special education methods course reported that they preferred a video-based reflection procedure over a memory-based (no video) reflection procedure (Welsch & Devlin, 2007).

Sims (1987) found that preservice music teachers had more positive and accurate self-evaluations after video feedback. Preservice music teachers engaged in video reflection improved in their ratio of teacher talk to student action, subsequent lesson structuring, and error detection (Snyder, 2011). However, Snyder, along with Duke and Prickett (1987), found that preservice music teachers tended to focus on self rather than student concerns during initial video reflections. Since these authors examined initial reflections, it is unknown whether the participants would have shifted focus to student concerns over time with multiple opportunities for video reflection.

Dewey (1904) recommended that preservice teachers begin to learn to teach by undergoing structured laboratory experiences that allow for guidance and reflection rather than being forced to confront “real-world” issues, like classroom management, too early. He cautioned that apprentices who imitate models of teaching may “seem to know how to teach, but they are not students of teaching” (Dewey, 1904, p. 15). He believed that teachers should develop their own “independent intelligence” (Dewey, 1904, p. 16) through careful practice and reflection. Otherwise, preservice teachers may follow blindly a model or a method without critically thinking about what works best for them and their students.

In the context of music teacher education programs, peer- and field-teaching experiences associated with methods courses often serve as these structured laboratories that allow for the development of guided reflective practice. Researchers also have examined peer and field teaching in music teacher education. Peer teaching allows preservice educators the opportunity to focus on lesson structure, pacing, and pedagogy without the management or procedural concerns presented in the school classroom environment. However, peer teaching lacks classroom authenticity and may not lead to a sense of occupational identity among the participants (Paul, 1998; Powell, 2011).

Field-teaching experiences (teaching experiences prior to student teaching that take place in preK–12 schools) provide a more authentic context for learning to teach (Butler, 2001; Henry, 2001; Kerchner, 1998; McDowell, 2007; Powell, 2011; Reynolds & Conway, 2003; Townsend, 2000; Wolfgang, 1990) and may help preservice music teachers to build confidence in working with preK–12 students (Conkling, 2003; Hourigan & Scheib, 2009). Field teaching also may help strengthen preservice teachers’ identities as music educators and reinforce their choice of teaching area and level (Butler, 2001; Wolfgang, 1990). Fant (1996) found that field teaching with feedback combined with peer teaching during preservice education was positively related to student teaching performance.

Several researchers have examined the role of video feedback in teacher education programs, while several others have investigated preservice teachers’ experiences in peer- and field-teaching settings. However, I found no previous study on the role of video feedback in relation to the concerns of preservice music teachers in both peer- and field-teaching settings. The purpose of this study was to investigate the concerns of 19 preservice music teachers in peer- and field-teaching settings before and after video feedback using Fuller and Bown’s (1975) three-stage concerns model as a lens. The research questions guiding this study were as follows: (1) What were the concerns of the participants during peer- and field-teaching episodes? (2) How do the concerns of the participants differ in these two settings? (3) How do the concerns of the participants evolve over the course of multiple peer- and field-teaching experiences, and is this evolution consistent with the Fuller and Bown three-stage model? and (4) How does video-based reflection influence the concerns of the participants?

Theoretical Framework

Fuller’s (1969) concerns model has been used frequently as a lens to investigate preservice teacher development. Fuller examined the content of discussions and written statements of student teachers, conceptualizing a developmental model of concerns, including (a) preteaching, nonconcern; (b) early teaching, concern with self (e.g., Where do I stand? How adequate am I?); and (c) late teaching, concerns with pupils.

Fuller and Bown (1975) developed and extended Fuller’s (1969) work into a three-stage concerns model, which includes (a) survival (self) concerns (e.g., likeability, being evaluated by supervisors, classroom management ability), (b) teaching situation (task) concerns (e.g., time management, teaching materials, noninstructional duties), and (c) pupil (student impact) concerns (e.g., effect of instruction upon student learning and the emotional needs of students). According to Fuller and Bown, preservice teachers have more survival concerns than do in-service teachers, while in-service teachers express more concerns about the teaching situation and student learning. The researchers also stated that these concern categories either may be true stages or only clusters and that they may be distinct or overlapping.

Within the general education literature, researchers examining preservice teaching utilizing the concerns model have encountered mixed results. These inconsistent findings may be due to differences in research design or varying models of preservice teacher preparation. Several studies support the concept of a linear progression of concerns (from self to task to student; e.g., Calderhead & Robson, 1991; Kagan, 1992; Pigge & Marso, 1989), while others have found that preservice teachers either do not progress through stages (e.g., Gore & Zeichner, 1991; Weinstein, 1998) or do not progress through the stages in a linear fashion (e.g., Burn, Hagger, Mutton, & Everton, 2000). Studies from the music education literature utilizing the concerns model also have resulted in mixed findings. Broyles (1997) and Yourn (2000) found support for a linear-progressive concept of the model, while Coleman (1999) found that music student teachers remained focused on self throughout the internship experience. Campbell and Thompson (2007) found that preservice music teachers ranked student impact concerns highest, followed by self concerns, with task concerns ranked lowest. Over a 5-year period, Killian, Dye, and Wayman (2013) examined the concerns of 159 preservice music teachers from a single institution before and after student teaching. Self concerns of these participants decreased, while student concerns increased after the student teaching experience.

McLaughlin (1991), Berg and Miksza (2010), Miksza and Berg (2013), and Powell (2014) found that preservice teacher concerns progressed not necessarily linearly through stages but, rather, grouped in clusters. Miksza and Berg concluded that concerns seem to be highly influenced by context. As teachers encounter new teaching circumstances (such as a new class or new repertoire), the focus of concerns returns to self, even if it had shifted previously to task or student. Concerns then gradually may shift to task and student concerns as familiarity with the new context is gained. Rather than moving from self to task to student concerns in a linear, predicable fashion, preservice teachers may have clusters of concerns that are highly influenced by context and emphasis of reflective exercises. In this study, I have continued the line of inquiry into preservice music teacher concerns begun by Berg and Miksza (2010) and developed and extended by Miksza and Berg (2013) and Powell (2014).

Method

Participants

Participants in this study were 19 undergraduate instrumental music education majors enrolled in two sections (fall 2012 and fall 2013) of a senior-level secondary instrumental methods course at a medium-size state university (approximately 9,000 students) located in the southeastern United States. All participants were 4th-year college seniors (21 or 22 years old). Combined, the classes consisted of 8 females and 11 males and included 1 African American student, 1 Hispanic student, 2 Asian students, and 15 White students (for a thoughtful discussion on the somewhat troubling demographics of preservice music educators, see Dobbs, 2014, and Elpus, 2015). The instrumental representation consisted of three flutists, two clarinetists, two saxophonists, two trumpeters, one hornist, five trombonists, two percussionists, one violist, and one harpist. Their prior curricular field experiences consisted of observations, and they had no formal peer-teaching experience within an instrumental music education context. I served as the instructor of the course as well as the primary investigator in this study. I address the issues involved in the instructor-researcher dynamic in the Trustworthiness section.

The Methods Course

Class sessions were held 4 days per week (Monday and Wednesday for 50 min, Tuesday and Thursday for 75 min). Two days per week (Tuesday and Thursday), the class met as a lab ensemble in which members of the class led peer-teaching sessions, while the rest of the class performed on secondary instruments. Class members were required to lead a field-teaching episode with students in a local public school instrumental ensemble twice during the semester. The first field-teaching episodes took place in local middle schools during the 6th week of the semester; the second field-teaching episodes took place in local high schools during the 11th week of the semester. Additionally, each class member led a peer-teaching episode in class the week prior to each assigned field-teaching episode as preparation for the field experience. Each teaching episode lasted approximately 12 min and was recorded using a high-definition video camera.

Procedure

Fuller and Manning (1973) recommended a process for teacher video reflection. After a teaching episode, but before viewing the video recording of that episode, a teacher privately reflects on the lesson. This process will reveal the teacher’s current concerns. These concerns likely will influence the overall attitude that the teacher has toward playback before it occurs. During playback, the teacher has the opportunity to evaluate the discrepancies between the experienced/remembered teaching performance and the observed performance as seen through video. Through reflecting on factors contributing to self, task, and student impact concerns, the teacher (along with mentors, such as cooperating teachers or teacher educators) can devise strategies that can foster “goal-oriented change which is spontaneous, permanent, and self-automated” (Fuller & Manning, 1973, p. 511). Participants in this study wrote free-form, unstructured reflections immediately after each of the four teaching episodes before receiving any feedback. Afterward, within 24 hr of each teaching episode, the participants wrote free-form, unstructured reflections that were completed during and immediately after viewing the video of their teaching episode. No teacher feedback was given during this 24-hr period, and participants were instructed not to give each other feedback before each individual viewed her or his video. The result was eight written reflections for each of the 19 participants (152 total written reflections).

In order to gain a global view of participant concerns, I utilized an a priori deductive coding procedure (LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Miles & Huberman, 1994) using a preexisting codebook (Berg & Miksza, 2010; modified by Powell, 2014) that I structured using Fuller and Bown’s (1975) concern categories (i.e., self, task, student impact). I chose a preexisting codebook in order to allow for a close comparison between the results of this study and previous research. Codes included in the self category referred to personal concerns (e.g., communication, evaluation of teaching, organization, rapport). Codes in the task category included concerns with the content and delivery of instruction or the teaching environment (e.g., error detection, feedback, pacing, planning, rehearsal strategy use). Codes in the student category reflected a concern for student learning as a result of the lesson and student characteristics (e.g., student motivation, adapting to students in the moment, students enjoying the music). I coded a total of 2,404 statements among the three concern categories.

In addition to coding data into preexisting categories, I used an inductive approach to examine the differences in quality of participants’ statements before and after video viewing. I looked for phrases that indicated whether participants were engaged in a different type or an additional level of reflection as a result of video viewing. I will discuss the findings from both the deductive and inductive processes in the Findings and Discussion section.

Trustworthiness

As with all qualitative research, personal relationships and histories play a significant role in the stories that emerge. As the professor of the methods course, I took steps to assure student-participants that I was seeking their honest self-reflections. Since the written self-reflections that served as the main data in this study were also course assignments, I feel that participants took them seriously. A positive aspect of my relationship with these participants was in the building of rapport. Because of our prior relationships and the participants’ awareness of the purpose of the video reflections, I believe that I maintained an appropriate rapport throughout the process. Additionally, I mitigated researcher effects (Miles & Huberman, 1994) by informing participants of the research project only after data collection was complete and by analyzing data after grades were submitted. All students in both sections of the methods course were asked permission to allow their written reflections to be used as data in this study, and all students in both sections consented by signing an informed consent letter. While it is possible that students from the fall 2013 section learned about the study from the students who were enrolled in the fall 2012 section, I did not share findings or inform the students about the theoretical framework upon which their reflections would be analyzed.

In order to strengthen the reliability of the coding process, copies of the participants’ written reflections and the list of codes were sent to an independent colleague at another university who had no previous relationship to the participants or knowledge of the teaching contexts. We used a predetermined intercoder agreement process (see Creswell, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994). After the independent coder and I completed the process and compared codes, we discussed all disagreements in coding and came to a consensus about the final labels. In order to enhance the credibility of the analysis, I also utilized a peer review, which requires the investigator to discuss method and findings with another equal-status peer who is not connected to the study in any way, in order to check the process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This peer reviewer agreed with the overall findings and the methods, so no modifications to the process were deemed necessary.

Findings and Discussion

The percentages of concern codes by category for combined peer and field teaching are presented in Table 1. Task concerns were reported most frequently across all teaching episodes and remained relatively stable throughout. Self concerns were the second most reported and were reported less frequently overall in field-teaching episodes. Student concerns increased substantially in field-teaching episodes. The percentages of concern codes before and after video review are presented in Table 2. The percentages of concerns in each category remained stable before and after video review, with only a slight decrease in student concerns and a slight increase in self concerns. Within each category, concerns shifted after video feedback.

Table 1.

Percentages of Concern Codes by Setting.

Concern	Peer	Field
Student	4.67	13.83
Task	55.52	53.00
Self	39.91	33.17

Table 2.

Percentages of Concern Codes: Initial Versus Video Reflection.

Concern	Initial	Video
Student	10.46	9.83
Task	54.07	54.00
Self	35.47	36.17

Concern code distributions by participant and overall frequency are presented in Table 3. Code distribution was greatest in the task category, followed by self and student concerns, respectively. Overall, participants provided approximately 65% more reflective statements after video viewing (908 total reflective statements in initial reflections versus 1,496 total reflective statements in video reflections).

Table 3.

Number of Participants and Overall Frequency for Each Concern Code for Initial and Video Reflections.

		Peer 1 Initial		Peer 1 Video		Field 1 Initial		Field 1 Video		Peer 2 Initial		Peer 2 Video		Field 2 Initial		Field 2 Video
Code	Definition	n	Frequency	n	Frequency	n	Frequency	n	Frequency	n	Frequency	n	Frequency	n	Frequency	n	Frequency
Student
SA	Adapting	0	0	0	0	4	4	3	4	0	0	0	0	2	2	2	2
SENJ	Student enjoying music	0	0	0	0	2	2	3	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
SGR	Student group size	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
SI	Individual student impact	3	3	3	3	7	9	7	9	2	3	3	3	5	7	7	12
SL	General learning concern	4	4	3	3	10	11	19	39	5	5	11	14	17	20	19	33
SLIK	Students liking the teacher	0	0	0	0	0	0	3	3	0	0	0	0	3	3	1	1
SM	Student motivation	4	4	0	0	8	10	6	8	1	1	3	3	6	7	4	6
Task
TAB	Student ability level	3	3	2	2	10	16	15	21	5	5	2	2	12	17	6	7
TC	Conducting	6	7	8	10	0	0	10	18	3	6	9	13	1	1	15	27
TD	Discipline	0	0	0	0	8	12	13	21	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1
TE	Error detection	2	2	5	6	4	6	15	18	4	4	7	10	5	5	12	19
TF	Feedback	4	5	9	16	10	12	17	25	12	17	10	15	6	10	19	29
TG	Goals	4	4	5	5	4	4	14	16	13	16	6	6	5	7	7	7
TGR	Group size/configuration	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1
TIS	Instrument pedagogy	3	3	7	8	9	11	15	21	3	3	7	9	4	7	6	7
TK	Knowledge	1	1	1	1	3	4	6	11	2	2	5	6	4	4	2	2
TLEV	Student age/grade level	5	8	5	5	8	8	6	6	2	2	4	4	5	5	7	7
TLRP	Long-range planning	1	1	6	6	2	2	6	7	3	3	5	5	1	1	4	4
TMOD	Modeling	6	6	10	14	5	5	11	17	3	3	7	8	5	5	9	10
TPC	Pacing	5	7	8	11	5	6	8	14	6	8	13	19	6	7	6	8
TPL	Planning	9	10	17	27	15	20	19	28	15	22	15	24	10	14	11	16
TQ	Questioning	4	4	2	5	4	4	7	12	1	1	5	5	6	8	4	6
TREAL	Real-world relevance	2	3	6	6	1	1	8	10	4	5	5	6	2	2	2	2
TREH	Rehearsal strategy use	12	19	14	25	15	19	15	26	9	13	17	32	18	23	19	23
TREP	Repertoire	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	2	2
TT	Time	9	11	7	7	9	13	14	23	8	12	10	12	9	12	3	3
Self
SeA	Adapting	3	4	4	4	10	13	8	12	7	7	5	7	11	14	9	14
SeC	Communication	18	23	17	32	14	18	19	34	11	15	16	27	10	11	18	21
SeCON	Conducting (self)	7	7	9	10	7	7	8	11	4	7	6	8	3	4	6	6
SeEV	Evaluation of teaching	19	28	19	42	18	28	19	46	15	18	17	35	18	22	19	33
SeH	Humor	1	1	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	1	1
SeID	Identity	0	0	1	1	3	3	5	6	3	3	2	2	0	0	4	4
SeINDEC	Indecision	0	0	0	0	2	2	5	7	1	1	1	2	0	0	1	1
SeO	Organization	4	4	4	5	2	2	4	4	7	10	3	4	3	4	6	6
SeP	Physical	4	4	9	14	2	3	12	24	2	2	12	17	0	0	14	22
SePERS	Personality	4	4	5	5	0	0	4	5	0	0	3	6	4	4	10	12
SeNER	Nervousness	9	11	6	6	6	7	10	15	4	4	6	8	8	10	10	10
SeR	Rapport	3	3	2	2	3	3	4	4	0	0	0	0	7	9	6	6
Total			194		282		267		530		199		312		248		372

Self Concerns

The number of statements related to communication, physical traits, and self-evaluation of teaching more than doubled, on average, after video feedback. Audio and video of teaching elicited comments about verbal instructions, speaking voice, physical appearance, and habits or quirks as well as positive and negative critiques of teaching. The most commonly coded statements were labeled evaluation of teaching and often revealed the participants’ perceptions of the quality of their teaching as they saw it on video versus how they remembered it. Overall, video review elicited more detailed and specific responses from participants. Some participants took a more positive view of their teaching after video feedback, while others were more self-critical. Many participants wrote that their teaching was better than they initially thought. Below are quotes from a participant reflecting on her first field-teaching episode before and after video feedback:

I was really excited about today’s teaching, but I think it fell flat. I’m really disappointed in myself. What a letdown. (initial reflection)

After watching the video and reflecting on my teaching, I realized it might not have been as bad as I thought. (video reflection)

In contrast, some participants had a more negative self-perception after viewing their video. One participant reflected on his classroom presence after his first peer-teaching episode:

I think it will get better the more I teach. I am hoping that it’s just a defense mechanism of me being nervous so I am interested to see how it will improve. (initial reflection)

I was rather horrified by my video. It sounded pretty awful. I need to speak up so people can hear my directions. I think it went beyond nerves. (video reflection)

Some of the most interesting participant statements related to the identity code. As these preservice teachers navigated their own occupational identities, they used self-reflection to evaluate the extent to which they were becoming “real” teachers. Individuals imagine themselves thinking and acting like a person occupying a role to which they aspire (McCall & Simmons, 1978). The participants compared the image of themselves as presented on video to the preconceived image they had of a “teacher.” Participants desired to be seen as authentic—they did not want to be perceived as “acting” like a teacher. One participant stated after the second field-teaching episode,

I tried to be myself today, and not ‘act’ like a teacher. I hope that came across. (initial reflection)

After watching my video, I thought it was essentially me. I didn’t look or feel like I was overtly trying to be a band director. (video reflection)

Task Concerns

The number of concerns related to feedback and error detection increased after video feedback. Participants also reported being able to hear student performance better when viewing videos and not having to multitask. The realization that error detection was much more difficult during the teaching episodes was made clear during video review. One participant noted after her initial field-teaching episode,

I think I was able to hear some mistakes and correct them. (initial reflection)

I am now hearing things that I would have stopped and addressed within the lesson. It is very difficult for young teachers to really hear what is happening with their students when they have not been teaching for a while. I did not hear many of the mistakes, especially the intonation mistakes, which were presented to me during the lesson. (video reflection)

Another participant wrote after the second field-teaching episode,

I’m not sure I was able to focus on what they sounded like with all the other things I had going on. (initial reflection)

Now when I sit back and focus on listening to the sounds they are making, I am really able to pinpoint specific problems that I could not hear while focused on teaching and the order of the exercise. (video reflection)

Giving feedback in the moment was also a concern for the participants. Many stated that they could not think of specific feedback during the teaching episode, but the video review gave them mental space to be able to imagine the proper feedback. This was also related to the ability to concentrate on listening during video review. A participant stated after the initial peer-teaching episode,

I think I just went on with my plan without actually giving them feedback based on how they played. (initial reflection)

I didn’t know what kind of feedback to give them at that moment—now that I hear it on the video, I should have told the third trumpets to play with more air. (video reflection)

Student Concerns

Statements coded in the student concern category related to how teaching affects students. These statements take the students’ perspectives, rather than describing student characteristics that affect the teacher or the delivery of the lesson. Such statements may reveal participants’ insight into how their students perceive the lesson (e.g., “I think the students really enjoyed the scale game that we played. I think it was something different for them, and hopefully, they will have a new way to practice scales”). Student concerns represented the lowest percentage of reflective statements overall but increased during field-teaching reflections compared to peer-teaching reflections (4.67% to 13.83%). The percentage of statements coded as student concerns remained stable before and after video review (10.46% to 9.83%). Statements coded general learning concern (statements regarding the overall learning of the class) represented the largest number of student concern statements. Statements regarding general student learning concern grew both in depth and in number (40 statements in initial reflection, 89 statements in video reflections) after video review. Overall, participants reflected more deeply about how their teaching affected student learning during video reviews. An example follows (initial field-teaching episode):

Even though it was a short lesson, I really think the students learned something today. (initial reflection)

After I taught the lesson, I thought the students really improved. However, after seeing the video, I don’t think they really gained much. I went through my lesson, but I didn’t stop to think if the students were getting anything out of it. (video reflection)

Progression of Concerns

Overall, participants focused primarily on task concerns, followed by self and student concerns, respectively. The focus of concerns shifted little over the course of the semester or between video and nonvideo reflections. These trends of concern focus and movement aligned with previous studies (e.g., Berg & Miksza, 2010; Powell, 2014). The approximate percentages of student (10%), task (54%), and self (36%) concerns were almost identical to the overall percentages found by Powell (2014) across peer- and field-teaching experiences. Task concerns accounted for the highest percentage of overall concerns in all four teaching episodes, a finding consistent with Berg and Miksza (2010), Calderhead and Robson (1991), Pigge and Marso (1989), and Powell (2014). The relatively small magnitude of student concern emphasis over time is congruent with findings by Berg and Miksza (2010), Calderhead and Robson (1991), Powell (2014), and Weinstein (1998) but inconsistent with findings by Burn et al. (2000), who found that preservice teachers had a high level of concern for student impact from the beginning of the student teaching experience. In this study, participant concerns did not move linearly through stages but, rather, formed clusters around concern categories that remained stable throughout the semester. The finding that concerns grouped in clusters rather than progressing linearly over time aligns with findings by Berg and Miksza (2010), McLaughlin (1991), and Powell (2014). Although the concerns framework has been perceived as a linearly progressive model, Fuller and Bown (1975) stated that concerns might not develop necessarily in a linear fashion. As Raiber and Teachout (2014) stated,

Even though the teacher-concerns model appears to be a linear hierarchical process, it is also a dynamic process. This means there is often no clear delineation between stages and there can be times when a mixture of concerns are driving teacher thinking. Additionally, it is not uncommon for teachers in new contexts or environments to revert to self concerns or teaching concerns even if they had progressed to student-learning concerns in more familiar environments. (p. xiii)

It is possible that the participants’ concerns could have moved in a more linear fashion toward student concerns if they had remained within the same field placement context over the course of the semester. The shifting contexts may have “reset” concerns back to self and task: “It also is likely that the focus of a developing music teacher’s thoughts and actions can be greatly impacted, if not defined, by the teaching context” (Miksza & Berg, 2013, p. 57). More studies that involve examining concerns over a longer period of time within the same teaching environment are needed to further refine the concerns model, since it may take longer than a semester—even in one field setting—for concerns to shift in a meaningful way.

Congruent with findings by Powell (2014), statements coded evaluation of teaching (self concern) represented the most frequently coded statements and increased during field-teaching episodes. The video review process not only led to more statements evaluating teaching but often resulted in what can be seen as a second level of reflection. I will give examples of this second level in the following section. As preservice teachers learn from past mistakes and apply concepts to new experiences (Schmidt, 2010), it is important to support preservice teachers in writing meaningful self-critiques. Video reflection may be an avenue for facilitating meaningful self-evaluations from novice teachers.

Influence of Video Reflection

Participants wrote approximately 65% more in video reflections than in initial reflections. In addition, qualitative analysis revealed that participant statements often included a second level of analysis after video review. In this second level of reflection, participants reflected not only on their teaching episodes as seen in the video but also on their initial reflections. Phrases such as “Now that I see the video,” “Seeing myself now,” “After watching the video,” and “Now that I can hear what is happening” were used by participants to reflect not only on the video itself but on their initial impressions of the teaching episode. Seventeen of the 19 participants made at least one statement indicative of a second level of reflection. Some examples from video reflections include the following:

After watching the video and reflecting on my teaching, I realized it might not have been as bad as I thought.

After I taught, I thought I really got everyone to play that eighth-note rhythm together, but now that I see the video, I was wrong. Some of the students in the back row are still late on the entrance.

I was really confident that my voice projection was getting better, but now that I hear myself on the video, I realize that I’m not projecting to the back of the room.

After I taught, I felt so much better about my conducting, but on the video, I see that I’m still not clear with my ictus, and my left hand is still awkward.

In this way, video reflection enhanced the quality of the written reflective practice (see Harford & MacRuairc, 2008). Similar to Rosaen et al. (2008), participants wrote more specific comments about their teaching in video reflections than in initial reflections. An example follows (from the same participant):

I didn’t do as well as I had hoped today, but I don’t really know what I could have done better. The students just didn’t improve very much at all on that section of the music. (initial reflection)

After watching the video, I think that the students weren’t really engaged because I seemed nervous and lethargic up there. I didn’t think I felt like that at the time, but it looks that way on the tape. I think they would have responded, and we would have gotten a lot more done, if I had just brought more energy and confidence to the podium. (video reflection)

Several statements from video reflections were similar to the example above in that they showed a more detailed, specific analysis of the teaching episode. Rather than expressing general disappointment or satisfaction with the lesson, which was more common in the initial reflections, video reflections, on the whole, tended to include more detail and possible reasons for perceived success or failure.

Other Possible Factors Influencing Reflection

While the process of watching the teaching videos may have been the primary factor that resulted in participants’ writing more and with more specificity, other factors may have also contributed. One of these factors is time. Participants’ initial reflections were written immediately after each teaching episode, while the video reflections were written at participants’ leisure within 24 hr after the teaching episode. It is possible that simply allowing more time for reflection contributed to the greater amount of written reflection. The videos also likely served as memory prompts that aided in longer and deeper writing (see Sims, 1987).

Participant concerns, when examined as the percentage of concerns that were coded in each category, did not shift in focus as a result of video feedback. One of the factors contributing to the unchanging focus on self and task may have been the unstructured nature of the reflective exercises. Bullough and Gitlin (2001) recommended that reflection should be utilized only with careful attention paid to individual experience and context rather than mere technical delivery of content. It is possible that the participants in the present study thought that they should focus on themselves and the techniques of teaching, since rehearsal technique, pedagogy, teacher personality, planning, and delivery were the foci of the methods course itself.

Implications

A conscious effort may need to be made on the part of methods course instructors to focus on student learning needs during practicum teaching episodes. This is particularly challenging during peer-teaching episodes, when student learning is not actually impacted by the preservice teacher leading the episode (this was evidenced by an almost complete lack of emphasis on student concerns during peer-teaching episodes by the participants). However, an advantage of peer teaching is that it allows preservice teachers to focus on the technical aspects of planning and delivery without the added concerns of student impact, so the low focus on student concerns during these episodes may be natural and desirable. Field-teaching experiences seem to be the optimal opportunities to make a conscious effort to shift preservice teachers’ attention to student concerns. Perhaps teacher educators could introduce the Fuller and Bown (1975) concerns model to preservice teachers as a framework to help shape their reflections. This could serve as a structure for guiding reflective practice and assisting preservice teachers to attend to all aspects of their teaching, including student impact.

Video reflection practices also have implications for preservice music teacher identity development. Several researchers have examined how preservice teachers’ images of “teacher” influence how they perceive themselves and what they define as “good” teaching (e.g., Alsup, 2006; Brewer, 2009; Britzman, 2003; Bullough & Baughman, 1997; Bullough & Gitlin, 2001; Dobbs, 2014; Holt-Reynolds, 1992; Isbell, 2008; Lortie, 2002; Schmidt, 1998). Undergraduates arrive in teacher education programs with preconceived notions about the practice of teaching derived from their many years of experience as students. Participants in this study compared their internal images of a “teacher” (or, more commonly, “director”) to the images of themselves presented on video. Unguided reflection may reinforce harmful practices (Zeichner, 1994), and it also may reinforce inaccurate or inappropriate images of teaching, such as teacher as primarily a deliverer of content, interpreter of musical works, rehearsal “technician,” or authoritative director/conductor—images that perhaps derive from students’ own past experiences with ensemble teachers. Such images also may tend to reflect the demographic norms of music teachers in classrooms—overwhelmingly White and, especially in the case of instrumental conductors, majority male (Dobbs, 2014; Lebrecht, 1991). Such was the demographic profile of the participants in the present study. Teacher educators must consider the implications of presenting images of teaching to their students, even if those images are of the students themselves. Video reflection may provide a unique forum to begin or continue a dialogue about identity.

The participants in this study wrote reflections on their teaching in isolation without collaboration from their peers or myself. However, viewing and reflecting on teaching videos in group settings may be beneficial (e.g., Sherin & Linsenmeier, 2011; Sherin & van Es, 2009). Group video reflection may lead to teachers’ reflecting on their practices in ways that are valuable and not available during the regular course of their practice (Cherrington & Loveridge, 2014). Additionally, teachers may prefer to engage in video reflection in collaboration with colleagues over reflecting alone and may feel that the most important recommended changes come from these collaborative groups (Tripp & Rich, 2012a). Within a methods course, group viewing of peer-teaching episodes could be especially interesting and useful, since the peer group would serve as both the “students” and the reflectors/critics.

The method of video-recording the participants’ teaching episodes may have contributed to the focus of concerns in their reflections. The camera was placed in the back of the room with the teacher centered in the frame. Although the students in the class were visible, the visual focus was the preservice teacher. It would be interesting to repeat this study with the camera positioned behind or beside the teacher to capture the teacher’s point of view and to focus visually on the students. Student reactions and responses might take a more prominent place in participant reflections in this scenario. In addition, audio quality may be better (and thus more revealing of student progress) in this setup, especially with instrumental ensembles.

Studies involving theoretical frameworks related to teacher reflective practice and methods of reflection within and beyond teacher education programs help illuminate the inner and outer processes of preservice teacher thinking-in-action and thinking-in-reflection. As we work to understand the reflective processes of preservice teachers, we become better equipped to provide meaningful experiences within teacher education programs. A challenge of designing undergraduate curricula is balancing the need to provide authentic context with the need to provide a safe and structured environment that allows preservice teachers to try new ideas and to learn from mistakes. As Schön (1987) stated,

A practicum is, as I have noted, a virtual world. It seeks to represent essential features of a practice to be learned while enabling students to experiment at low risk, vary the pace and focus of work, and go back to do things over when it seems useful to do so. A practicum may fail because its striving for realism overloads students with practical constraints or because . . . it leaves out too many important features of real-world practice. (p. 170)

A sequence of peer- and field-teaching experiences accompanied by video reflection within a methods course is an attempt to balance authentic experience with a low-risk, experimental environment. Further understanding of the student experience in these settings may enhance future practice.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Sean R. Powell is assistant professor of music education at the University of North Texas. His research interests include music teacher education, preservice music teaching experiences, and music teacher identity development.

References

Alsup

(2006). Teacher identity discourses: Negotiating personal and professional spaces. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Berg

M. H.

Miksza

(2010). An investigation of preservice music teacher development and concerns. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 20(1), 39–55. doi:10.1177/1057083710363237

Brewer

W. D.

(2009). Conceptions of effective teaching and role-identity development among preservice music educators (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (No. 3361859)

Britzman

D. P.

(2003). Practice makes practice: A critical study of learning to teach (Rev. ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Broyles

J. W.

(1997). Effects of videotape analysis on role development of student teachers in music. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 58(03), 0823.

Bullough

R. V.

Baughman

(1997). First-year teacher eight years later: An inquiry into teacher development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bullough

R. V.

Gitlin

A. D.

(2001). Becoming a student of teaching: Linking knowledge production and practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Burn

Hagger

Mutton

Everton

(2000). Beyond concerns with self: The sophisticated thinking of beginning student teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 26, 259–278.

Butler

(2001). Preservice music teachers’ conceptions of teaching effectiveness, microteaching experiences, and teaching performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 258–272. doi:10.2307/3345711

10.

Calandra

Gurvitch

Lund

(2008). An exploratory study of digital video editing as a tool for teacher preparation. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 137–153.

11.

Calderhead

Robson

(1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers’ early conceptions of classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 1–8. doi:10.1016/0742-51X(91)90053-R

12.

Campbell

M. R.

Thompson

L. K.

(2007). Perceived concerns of preservice music education teachers: A cross-sectional study. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55, 162–176. doi:10.1177/002242940705500206

13.

Capizzi

A. M.

Wehby

J. H.

Sandmel

K. N.

(2010). Enhancing mentoring of teacher candidates through consultative feedback and self-evaluation of instructional delivery. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 33, 191–212. doi:10.1177/0888406409360012

14.

Cherrington

Loveridge

(2014). Using video to promote early childhood teachers’ thinking and reflection. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 42–51.

15.

Clarà

(2015). What is reflection? Looking for clarity in an ambiguous notion. Journal of Teacher Education, 66, 261–271. doi:10.1177/0022487114552028

16.

Coleman

T. R.

(1999). The music student teaching experience: Making connections. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 61(02), 540.

17.

Conkling

S. W.

(2003). Uncovering preservice music teachers’ reflective thinking: Making sense of learning to teach. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 155, 11–23.

18.

Creswell

J. W.

(2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

19.

Dewey

(1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. In McMurray

C. A.

(Ed.), The third NSSE yearbook (Part 1, pp. 9–30). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

20.

Dewey

(1991). How we think. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1910)

21.

Dobbs

T. L.

(2014). “No actual teaching”: Expanding preservice music teachers’ imaginaries of teaching. In Barrett

J. R.

Webster

P. R.

(Eds.), The musical experience: Rethinking music teaching and learning (pp. 294–308). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

22.

Duke

R. A.

Prickett

C. A.

(1987). The effect of differentially focused observation on evaluation of instruction. Journal of Research in Music Education, 35, 27–37. doi:10.2307/3345166

23.

Elpus

(2015). Music teacher licensure candidates in the United States: A demographic profile and analysis of licensure examination scores. Journal of Research in Music Education, 63, 314–335. doi:10.1177/0022429415602470

24.

Eröz-Tuğa

(2013). Reflective feedback sessions using video recordings. ELT Journal, 67(2), 175–183. doi:10.1093/elt/ccs081

25.

Fant

G. R.

(1996). An investigation of the relationships between undergraduate music education students’ early field experience and student teaching performance. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 57(11), 4681.

26.

Fuller

F. F.

(1969). Concerns of teachers: A developmental conceptualization. American Educational Research Journal, 6, 207–226. doi:10.3102/00028312006002207

27.

Fuller

F. F.

Bown

O. H.

(1975). Becoming a teacher. In Ryan

(Ed.), Teacher education, part II: The 74th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 25–52). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

28.

Fuller

F. F.

Manning

B. A.

(1973). Self-confrontation reviewed: A conceptualization for video playback in teacher education. Review of Educational Research, 43, 469–528. doi:10.3102/00346543043004469

29.

Gore

J. M.

Zeichner

K. M.

(1991). Action research and reflective teaching in preservice teacher education: A case study from the United States. Teaching and Teacher Education, 7, 119–136. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(91)90022-H

30.

Harford

MacRuairc

(2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1884–1892. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.010

31.

Henry

(2001). Music teacher education and the professional development school. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 10(2), 23–28. doi:10.1177/10570837010100020105

32.

Holt-Reynolds

(1992). Personal history-based beliefs as relevant prior knowledge in course work. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 325–349. doi:10.3102/00028312029002325

33.

Hourigan

R. M.

Scheib

J. W.

(2009). Inside and outside the undergraduate music education curriculum: Student teacher perceptions of the value of skills, abilities, and understandings. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 18(2), 48–61. doi:10.1177/1057083708327871

34.

Isbell

D. S.

(2008). Musicians and teachers: The socialization and occupational identity of preservice music teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education, 56, 162–178.

35.

Kagan

D. M.

(1992). Growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62, 129–169. doi:10.2307/1170578

36.

Kerchner

J. L.

(1998). A model for educational partnerships. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 8(1), 7–14. doi:10.1177/105708379800800103

37.

Killian

J. N.

Dye

K. G.

Wayman

J. B.

(2013). Music student teachers: Pre-student teaching concerns and post-student teaching perceptions over a 5-year period. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 63–79.

38.

King

S. E.

(2008). Inspiring critical reflection in preservice teachers. Physical Educator, 65(1), 21–29.

39.

Kurz

T. L.

Llama

Savenye

(2005). Issues and challenges of creating video cases to be used with preservice teachers. TechTrends, 49(4), 67–73.

40.

Lebrecht

(1991). The maestro myth. New York, NY: Carol Publishing Group.

41.

LeCompte

M. D.

Schensul

J. J.

(1999). Ethnographer’s toolkit: Vol. 5. Analyzing and interpreting ethnographic data. Lanham, MD: Altamira.

42.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

43.

Lortie

D. C.

(2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

44.

McCall

G. J.

Simmons

J. L.

(1978). Identities and interactions. New York, NY: Free Press.

45.

McDowell

(2007). Are they ready to student teach? Reflections from 10 music education majors concerning their three semesters of field experience. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 16(2), 45–60. doi:10.1177/10570837070160020106

46.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1991). The reflection on the blackboard: Student teacher self-evaluation. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 37, 141–159.

47.

Miksza

Berg

M. H.

(2013). A longitudinal study of preservice music teacher development: Application and advancement of the Fuller and Bown teacher-concerns model. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 44–62.

48.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

49.

Newhouse

Lane

Brown

(2007). Relecting on teaching practices using digital video representation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 1–12. doi:10.14221/ajte.2007v32n3.5

50.

Nieves-Squires

L. C.

(1978). Teacher theory/practice: Disciplined inquiry and self-improvement. Improving College and University Teaching, 26, 258–262. doi:10.1080/00193089.1978.9927595

51.

Orlova

(2009). Video recording as a stimulus for reflection in pre-service EFL teacher training. English Teaching Forum, 47(2), 30–35.

52.

Paul

S. J.

(1998). The effects of peer teaching experiences on the professional role development of undergraduate instrumental music education majors. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 137, 73–92.

53.

Pigge

F. L.

Marso

R. N.

(1989, March). A longitudinal assessment of the affective impact of preservice training on prospective teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

54.

Powell

S. R.

(2011). Examining preservice music teachers’ perceptions of initial peer- and field-teaching experiences. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 21(1), 11–26. doi:10.1177/1057083710386751

55.

Powell

S. R.

(2014). Examining preservice music teacher concerns in peer- and field-teaching settings. Journal of Research in Music Education, 61, 361–378. doi:10.1177/0022429413508408

56.

Raiber

Teachout

(2014). The journey from music student to teacher: A professional approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

57.

Reynolds

A. M.

Conway

C. M.

(2003). Service-learning in music education methods: Perceptions of participants. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 155, 1–10.

58.

Rosaen

C. L.

Lundeberg

Cooper

Fritzen

Terpstra

(2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 347–360. doi:10.1177/0022487108322128

59.

Schmidt

(1998). Defining “good” music teaching: Four student teachers’ beliefs and practices. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 138, 19–46.

60.

Schmidt

(2010). Learning from teaching experience: Dewey’s theory and preservice teachers’ learning. Journal of Research in Music Education, 58, 131–146. doi:10.1177/0022429410368723

61.

Schön

D. A.

(1983). The reflective practictioner. New York, NY: Basic Books.

62.

Schön

D. A.

(1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

63.

Sherin

M. G.

Linsenmeier

K. A.

(2011). Pause, rewind, reflect: Video clubs throw open the classroom doors. Journal of Staff Development, 32(5), 38.

64.

Sherin

M. G.

van Es

E. A

. (2005). Using video to support teachers’ ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13, 475–491.

65.

Sherin

M. G.

van Es

E. A

. (2009). Effects of video club participation on teachers’ professional vision. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 20-37.

66.

Sims

W. L.

(1987). Comparison of music teaching self-evaluation before and after videotape feedback. Missouri Journal of Research in Music Education, 5(4), 7–20.

67.

Snyder

D. W.

(2011). Preparing for teaching through reflection. Music Educators Journal, 97(3), 56–60. doi:10.1177/0027432111399348

68.

Townsend

R. D.

(2000). The Holmes group: A private college plausibility study. Journal of Music Teacher Education, 10(1), 24–31. doi:10.1177/105708370001000105

69.

Tripp

T. R.

Rich

P. J.

(2012a). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28, 728–739. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011

70.

Tripp

Rich

(2012b). Using video to analyze one’s own teaching. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 678–704. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01234.x

71.

van Es

E. A.

Sherin

M. G.

(2008). Mathematics teachers’ “learning to notice” in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 244–276. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2006.11.005

72.

Weinstein

C. S.

(1998). “I want to be nice, but I have to be mean”: Exploring prospective teachers’ conceptions of caring and order. Teaching and Teacher Education, 14, 153–163. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00034-6

73.

Welsch

R. G.

Devlin

P. A.

(2007). Developing preservice teachers’ reflection: Examining the use of video. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 53–61. doi:10.1080/01626620.2007.10463429

74.

Wolfgang

R. E.

(1990). Early field experience in music education: A study of teacher role socialization. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 52(1), 137.

75.

Yourn

B. R.

(2000). Learning to teach: Perspectives from beginning music teachers. Music Education Research, 2(1), 181–192. doi:10.1080/14613800050165631

76.

Zeichner

K. M.

(1994). Research on teacher thinking and different views of reflective practice in teaching and teacher education. In Carlgre

Handal

Vaage

(Eds.), Teachers’ minds and actions: Research on teachers’ thinking and practice (pp. 9–27). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

77.

Zhang

Lundeberg

Koehler

M. J.

Eberhardt

(2011). Understanding affordances and challenges of three types of video for teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 454–462. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.015